Wood v. Palace Entm't

• Decision Date: 29 March 2023
• Docket Number: 2:20cv1029
• Parties: JANINE WOOD, Individually1 and as parent and natural guardian of her minor child, H.W., JACKIE WEBBER, Parent and natural guardian of her minor child, J.M., RYAN WALSH and LISA MAZZONI, Individually and as parent and natural guardian of her minor son, J.C., Plaintiffs, v. PALACE ENTERTAINMENT d/b/a KENNYWOOD PARK, SANDCASTLE WATERPARK and IDLEWILD AND SOAKZONE1 Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

1

JANINE WOOD, Individually1 and as parent and natural guardian of her minor child, H.W., JACKIE WEBBER, Parent and natural guardian of her minor child, J.M., RYAN WALSH and LISA MAZZONI, Individually and as parent and natural guardian of her minor son, J.C., Plaintiffs, v. PALACE ENTERTAINMENT d/b/a KENNYWOOD PARK, SANDCASTLE WATERPARK and IDLEWILD AND SOAKZONE1 Defendant.

No. 2:20cv1029

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

March 29, 2023

OPINION ^[1]

DAVID STEWART CERCONE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Ryan Walsh, along with a group of parents on behalf of themselves and/or their minor children (the "plaintiffs") commenced this action against Festival Fun Parks LLC^[2] d/b/a Palace Entertainment (the "defendant"), owner and operator of Kennywood Park, Sandcastle Waterpark, and Idlewild and Soakzone (collectively, the "parks") challenging the masking policies that were implemented at its parks during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Plaintiffs' only federal claims arise under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") for discrimination and retaliation/coercion.^[3] Additionally, plaintiff H.W. has a state law claim for negligence/reckless conduct. In relation to their federal claims, plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief that would grant them the ability to enter the parks without masks due to their alleged disabilities. However, on April 17, 2022, Kennywood opened for the 2022 season and consistent with CDC guidance, did not mandate guests or employees to wear face masks at the park. See Defendant's Ex. 38, Reilly Decl. ¶ 7.^[4]In the past, defendant has maintained the same mask policies throughout all three parks and there is no evidence before the court that it deviated from that practice at the parks at any time in 2022. Id. at Exh. B, Exh. C; see also https://www.sandcastlewaterpark.com/prepare-your-visit/people-services/covid-info, https://www.idlewild.com/prepare-your-visit/relevant-information/faqs (indicating that "face coverings" are no longer required for Sandcastle Waterpark and Idlewild and Soakzone personnel and guests).

Several federal courts across the country, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, have been presented with similar disputes relating to COVID-19 restrictions that have since been lifted. These courts ultimately determined that the challenges to these restrictions were no longer justiciable under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. See e.g., Clark v. Governor of New Jersey, 53 F.4th 769 (3d Cir. 2022) (claims against Governor's restrictions on religious congregation limits deemed moot); John Doe 1 et al. v. North Allegheny Sch. Dist., App. Nos. 22-1160 & 22-1299, 2022 WL 2951467 (3d Cir. Mar. 1, 2022) (claims seeking to enjoin mask policies at schools deemed moot); Parker v. Governor of Pennsylvania, App. No. 20-3518, 2021 WL 5492803, at *4 (3d Cir. Nov. 23, 2021) (challenge to lifted statewide mandate requiring masks declared moot); County of Butler v. Governor of Pa., 8 F.4th 226, 230 (3d Cir. 2021) (finding that challenges to various retracted COVID-19 emergency measures, such as stay-at-home orders, business closure orders and congregation limits, moot); and Pletcher v. Giant Eagle Inc., No. CV 2:20-754, 2022 WL 17488019 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 7, 2022) (challenges to grocery store chain's mask requirement deemed moot).

Presently before the court is defendant's motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted. Specifically, plaintiffs' Title III ADA discrimination and retaliation/coercion claims at Counts I and II of the Complaint will be dismissed as moot. Furthermore, the court will decline to further exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff H.W.'s remaining state law claim for negligence/reckless conduct at Count III. Therefore, this state law claim will be dismissed without prejudice so that plaintiff H.W. may further pursue her claims in state court if she chooses to do so.^[5]

In January of 2020, the first cases of COVID-19 were reported in the United States. See Ex. 30. In an effort to slow the spread of COVID-19, the Governor of Pennsylvania (the "Governor") and the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Health (the "Secretary of Health") issued numerous orders over the course of several months providing guidance to both individuals and businesses on how best to navigate various environments safely and reduce the risk of becoming infected with COVID-19 or transmitting it to others as the COVID-19 pandemic evolved. Id.

In July of 2020, in response to the Governor and Secretary of Health's orders and the significantly high level of risk of transmission of COVID-19 at that time, defendant implemented identical mask policies at the parks in an effort to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 and to protect the health and safety of its employees and guests. See Ex. 38, Exh. A, B, and C. When the mask policies were adopted, vaccines and other life-saving therapeutics were not readily available to the public. See Ex. 18, Ex. 2 to Reilly Transcript (Palace Responses to Pls.' Interrogs. at 7 (Interrog. 3(a))).

The implemented mask policies required all guests ages three and older to wear face coverings, except while eating or drinking or when accessing certain water attractions where face coverings could cause drowning. See Ex. 38, Exh. A, B, and C; Ex. 17, Reilly Transcript at 89:23-92:20, 100:21-101:3. The mask policies did not make any exceptions for individuals who were unable to wear masks due to an underlying medical condition and/or disability. Id.

On varying dates, the record indicates that either via email, telephonically or in-person, the plaintiffs were denied entry to the parks as a result of their being unable and/or unwilling to adhere to the defendant's mask policy due to their alleged disabilities. When this occurred, defendant extended all of the plaintiffs' 2020 annual passes through the 2021 season, at no cost. (Or in the alternative, offered to refund the full amount of the annual passes.) See Ex. 16, Wood Responses to Palace's Interrogs. at 4-5 (Interrog. 8); Ex. 2, Walsh Transcript at 103:7-104:20; Ex. 5, Webber Transcript at 131:7-10, 141:21-23; Ex. 8, Webber Responses to Palace's Interrogs. at 4 (Interrogs. 8, 10); Ex. 38, Reilly Decl. ¶ 6. Thereafter, each plaintiff visited or planned to visit the parks in 2021 using their extended annual pass. Id.

On June 28, 2021, the state mandate requiring individuals to wear masks was lifted by the Pennsylvania Department of Health. Parker, 2021 WL 5492803, at *1. Additionally, as stated above, the parks no longer have a mandatory mask policy. Therefore, plaintiffs are seeking to both challenge and request an accommodation to a mandatory mask policy that is no longer in effect.

Plaintiffs seek the following injunctive relief:

Plaintiffs request that the court award them injunctive relief requiring Kennywood, Sandcastle, and Idlewild to accommodate Plaintiffs by modifying their policies and procedures, allowing them to enter and enjoy the park without wearing a mask so that they may fully and equally enjoy the benefits, privileges, goods, services facilities, advantages, and accommodations of the parks in the future. To affect such relief to Plaintiffs, it may be appropriate for the court to provide clear protocols to all Kennywood, Sandcastle, and Idlewild's employees advising that persons who cannot wear a mask inside the parks due to a disability must be accommodated. Kennywood, Sandcastle, and Idlewild should be required to train their employees about their legal obligations and to post and disseminate notice to Kennywood, Sandcastle, and Idlewild employees regarding their legal obligations under the ADA . . . .

See Complaint, ¶ 70. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the averments asserting retaliation and coercion in violation of Title III of the ADA, in conjunction with the injunctive relief sought in paragraph 70 of the Complaint.

The court's "'continuing obligation' to assure that [it has subject matter] jurisdiction requires that [it] raise issues of standing and mootness sua sponte." Seneca Res. Corp. v. Twp. of Highland, Elk Cnty., Pennsylvania, 863 F.3d 245, 252 (3d Cir. 2017). Consistent with this principle, the Third Circuit recently summarized the legal precepts governing the case at hand in Clark v. Governor of New Jersey. The court opined:

The jurisdiction of the federal courts is limited to "Cases" and "Controversies". U.S. Const art. III, § 2, cl. 1. "Thus, [we] can entertain actions only if they present live disputes, ones in which both sides have a personal stake." Hartnett v. Pennsylvania State Educ. Ass'n, 963 F.3d 301, 305 (3d Cir. 2020) (citing Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 492-93, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 173 L.Ed.2d 1 (2009)). The doctrine of mootness ensures that this condition remains "throughout the life of the lawsuit." See Freedom from Religion Found. Inc. v. New Kensington Arnold Sch. Dist., 832 F.3d 469, 476 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Cook v. Colgate Univ., 992 F.2d 17, 19 (2d Cir. 1993)); see also Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91, 133 S.Ct. 721, 184 L.Ed.2d 553 (2013) ("No matter how vehemently the parties continue to dispute the lawfulness of the conduct that precipitated the lawsuit, the case is moot if the dispute 'is no longer embedded in any actual controversy about the plaintiffs' particular legal rights.'" (quoting Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U.S. 87, 93, 130 S.Ct. 576, 175 L.Ed.2d 447 (2009))).

If it is impossible for us to grant "any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party," then the case is moot. See, e.g., Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153, 161, 136 S.Ct. 663, 193 L.Ed.2d 571 (2016) (quoting Knox v. Serv. Emps., 567 U.S. 298, 132 S.Ct.

...