Smith v. Bd. of Commissioners of the La. Stadium
| Citation | 371 F.Supp.3d 313 |
| Decision Date | 06 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-7267 |
| Parties | Nancy SMITH, Plaintiff v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF the LOUISIANA STADIUM AND EXPOSITION DISTRICT, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Andrew David Bizer, Marc P. Florman, Jacqueline Kaye Hammack, Bizer & DeReus, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff.
Christopher Neal Walters, Scott G. Centorino, Angela J. O'Brien, Louisiana Department of Justice, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants.
SECTION: "E" (1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are (1) a motion for summary judgment, filed by Plaintiff Nancy Smith, on her claims against Defendant SMG;1 (2) a motion for summary judgment, filed by Smith, on her claims against Defendants the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District ("LSED") and Kyle France;2 and (3) a motion for summary judgment, filed by the LSED, France, and SMG.3 The motions are opposed.4 In this order, the Court addresses only the parties' arguments regarding Plaintiff's standing to sue for injunctive relief.5 For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment, finding she has standing to seek injunctive relief under Title II of the ADA against the LSED and France and under Title III of the ADA against SMG6 and DENIES Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the same issues. The Court will address the remaining portions of the motions in a separate order.
The following facts are undisputed. Plaintiff is an amputee who is disabled within the meaning of the ADA.7 On April 2, 2016, she attempted to call the box office of the Mercedes-Benz Superdome ("Superdome") to purchase tickets for a Guns N' Roses concert, to be held on July 31, 2016.8 In reality, she contacted a representative of Box Office Ticket Center LLC, who assured her the tickets she was purchasing were accessible seats compliant with the ADA.9
The Superdome is owned by LSED and operated and managed by Defendant SMG.10 SMG is responsible for coordinating events, including creating seating charts for concerts.11 Ticketmaster LLC, not Box Office Ticket Center LLC, has the sole and exclusive right to sell and distribute tickets for concerts at the Superdome.12 SMG identifies accessible seats in its seating chart for music concerts and submits that information to Ticketmaster.13 SMG's usual practice is to reserve additional ADA-accessible seats in case a customer with a disability, but without a ticket for an accessible seat, requests to be moved to an accessible seat.14 For the Guns N' Roses concert, SMG reserved approximately one hundred fifty-one accessible seats for this purpose.15
Plaintiff's ticket originally was bought from Ticketmaster LLC and resold on the secondary market by Box Office Ticket Center LLC. The seat for which Plaintiff purchased a ticket had not been designated by SMG as accessible.16 When Plaintiff and her daughter arrived at the Superdome on the night of the concert, they sought assistance from a SMG staffer to locate their seats.17 Plaintiff asked the staffer to remove the existing chair in the space of her ticketed seat to permit her to park her wheelchair in its place.18 The staffer told her the existing chair could not be removed.19 Plaintiff expressed safety concerns about her being transferred out of her wheelchair into the existing chair, but eventually agreed to do so.20 The SMG staffer took her wheelchair, which was returned to her after the concert.21
Plaintiff resides in Hinds County, Mississippi, about 180 miles from the Superdome.22 At deposition, Plaintiff testified she had been to the Superdome ten to fifteen times and that the last time she went to the Superdome before the Guns N' Roses concert was in 2009.23 She has not returned to the Superdome since the concert.24 Plaintiff testified she bought tickets to a Bruno Mars concert at the Smoothie King Center, but decided not to go because of her experience at the Guns N' Roses concert.25 She testified she "would like to" return to the Superdome if she were interested in an event, but there had been no events since the Guns N' Roses concert that had interested her.26
On July 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint.27 She filed an amended complaint on August 20, 2017.28 The Defendants remaining in the case are SMG, the LSED, and France, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Board of Commissioners of the LSED. Plaintiff brings (1) a claim for injunctive relief under Title II of the ADA against the LSED and France, (2) a claim for injunctive relief under Title III of the ADA against SMG, (3) a claim for damages under Title II of the ADA against the LSED and France, and (4) a claim for damages under the LHRA against SMG.29 In this order, the Court addresses only the first and second claims, under which Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief.
On December 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to SMG30 and a motion for partial summary judgment as to the LSED and France.31 She argues she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that she has standing to seek injunctive relief.32 Defendants oppose.33 On December 26, 2018, Defendants SMG, the LSED, and France filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims, arguing they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law that Plaintiff does not have standing to seek injunctive relief.34 Plaintiff opposes.35 With respect to the issue of Plaintiff's standing to seek injunctive relief under Title II of the ADA against the LSED and France and Title III of the ADA against SMG, Plaintiff moves the Court to find she has standing. Defendants move the Court to find she does not.36
Summary judgment is appropriate only "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."37 "An issue is material if its resolution could affect the outcome of the action."38 When assessing whether a material factual dispute exists, the Court considers "all of the evidence in the record but refrain[s] from making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence."39 All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the non-moving party.40 There is no genuine issue of material fact if, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, no reasonable trier of fact could find for the non-moving party, thus entitling the moving party to judgment as a matter of law.41
"[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." To satisfy Rule 56's burden of production, the moving party must do one of two things: "the moving party may submit affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim" or "the moving party may demonstrate to the Court that the nonmoving party's evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim." If the moving party fails to carry this burden, the motion must be denied. If the moving party successfully carries this burden, the burden of production then shifts to the non-moving party to direct the Court's attention to something in the pleadings or other evidence in the record setting forth specific facts sufficient to establish that a genuine issue of material fact does indeed exist.42
If the dispositive issue is one on which the non-moving party will bear the burden of persuasion at trial, the moving party may satisfy its burden of production by either (1) submitting affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the non-movant's claim, or (2) affirmatively demonstrating that there is no evidence in the record to establish an essential element of the non-movant's claim.43 If the movant fails to affirmatively show the absence of evidence in the record, its motion for summary judgment must be denied.44 Thus, the non-moving party may defeat a motion for summary judgment by "calling the Court's attention to supporting evidence already in the record that was overlooked or ignored by the moving party."45 46
Plaintiff brings claims for injunctive relief against the LSED and France under Title II of the ADA and against SMG under Title III of the ADA. Plaintiff argues she has standing to bring these claims.47 Defendants argue that, to establish standing to seek injunctive relief, Plaintiff must show she "will once again purchase non-ADA accessible tickets and then again fail to make a request to SMG to exchange or relocate her tickets to an ADA accessible location."48 Defendants also argue that, because Plaintiff lives approximately 180 miles away from the Superdome and has admitted she has no concrete or specific plans to return, she cannot show a "likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury," meaning a likelihood she will be denied the benefits of future Superdome events.49
The Court notes that, in opposition to Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment on standing, Defendants raise questions concerning the merits of Plaintiff's ADA claims.50 When determining whether a plaintiff has Article III standing, the Court "must assume arguendo the merits of his or her legal claim."51 The merits of the claim include substantive questions of liability.52 In the standing inquiry in this case, the Court does not address the issue of whether Plaintiff can...
To continue reading
Request your trial