Smith v. Alsid

• Decision Date: 14 October 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 3:21-CV-111-SA-RP
• Parties: BRANDON SMITH PLAINTIFF v. MOAFK ALSID DEFENDANT
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi

BRANDON SMITH PLAINTIFF
v.
MOAFK ALSID DEFENDANT

Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-111-SA-RP

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Oxford Division

October 14, 2022

ORDER

SHARION AYCOCK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On July 14, 2021, Brandon Smith filed his Amended Complaint [9] against Moafk Alsid. Now before the Court is Alsid's Motion to Dismiss [48]. The Motion [48] has been fully briefed. Having reviewed the parties' filings, along with the applicable authorities, the Court is prepared to rule.

Relevant Background

This civil action arises from violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).

Brandon Smith is a Mississippi resident who utilizes a wheelchair for mobility purposes and qualifies as a person with a disability under the ADA. Smith also describes himself as “an independent advocate of the rights of similarly situated disabled persons and is a ‘tester' for the purpose of enforcing Plaintiff's civil rights, monitoring, determining, and ensuring whether places of public accommodation are in compliance with the ADA.” [9] at p. 2.

In May 2021, Smith visited Stateline Quick-Mart, a convenience store located at 985 Stateline Road East in Southaven, Mississippi. Alsid owns and operates Stateline. Smith contends that he attempted to patronize the business but was deterred from doing so due to its noncompliance with the ADA. Smith claims that he observed “unlawful physical barriers, dangerous conditions and ADA violations” both inside and around the exterior of the building. [9] at p. 7.

1

Those purportedly unlawful conditions include: no van accessible parking; no visible upright signage designating accessible parking; paint delineating accessible parking was faded; insufficient clear ground space around the exterior ice machine; accessible entrance not being level; lack of designated accessible parking; interior sales counter being too high for wheelchair users; restroom door closers which close the restroom doors to quickly; and the self-serve table area being too high for wheelchair users to reach.

After visiting the Quick-Mart, Smith initiated this lawsuit. In the Amended Complaint [9], he asserted that “removal of the physical barriers, dangerous conditions and ADA violations alleged herein is readily achievable and can be accomplished and carried out without significant difficulty or expense.” [9] at p. 9. In addition to the above-referenced specific violations, he asserts that Alsid has a practice of failing to maintain the business in compliance with the ADA. Smith seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.

In the pending Motion [48], Alsid contends that Smith's claims should be dismissed based upon the mootness doctrine. As noted above, Smith opposes Alsid's request.

Analysis and Discussion

“The ADA is a ‘broad mandate' of ‘comprehensive character' and ‘sweeping purpose' intended ‘to eliminate discrimination against disabled individuals, and to integrate them into the economic and social mainstream of American life.'” Kramer v. Lakehills South, LP, 2014 WL 51153, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2014) (quoting PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 675, 121 S.Ct. 1879, 149 L.Ed.2d 904 (2001)). The ADA prohibits discrimination in three major areas of public life: (1) employment; (2) public services, programs, and activities; and (3) public accommodations. Id. (citing Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 516-17, 124 S.Ct. 1978, 158 L.Ed.2d 820 (2004)).

2

Smith's claims concern public accommodations, which are governed by Title III of the ADA. Id.

As previously noted, Alsid seeks dismissal of Smith's claims based on mootness, specifically arguing that “all property conditions that allegedly failed to meet ADA accessibility standards, including additional items not referenced in the Complaint, have been addressed. . . Since there are no present violations of the ADA at Alsid's facility, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's moot claims, and the Complaint should be dismissed.” [49] at p. 1-2.

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” ESI/Employee Solutions, L.P. v. City of Dallas, 528 F.Supp.3d 564, 569 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2021) (quoting Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256, 133 S.Ct. 1059, 185 L.Ed.2d 72 (2013)). “When a case has been rendered moot, a federal court lacks constitutional authority to resolve the issues that it presents.” Id. at 570 (citing Env't Conservation Org. v. City of Dallas, 529 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008)). “Mootness occurs when a case no longer presents ‘live' issues or ‘the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the...