## Facts

- Bartley Mullin is a double above-knee amputee who uses a standard 18-inch-high wheelchair for mobility.
- Ashirward Hospitality, Inc. owned a hotel in Pennsylvania.
- Mullin contacted the hotel to ask about disabled-accessible rooms.
- The hotel informed Mullin that the mattress surface in the rooms was about 30 inches from the ground.
- Mullin alleged that a 30-inch bed height would make it difficult or impossible for him to transfer from his wheelchair to the bed.
- Mullin sued under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming the hotel’s failure to provide accessible beds violated the statute.
- Mullin alleged he had not previously visited the hotel, but he generally wanted to visit the surrounding area and stay at the hotel when he did so.
- Ashirward moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, arguing Mullin had not shown a concrete injury or a real risk of future harm because his plan to visit was vague.

## Issues

1. Whether Mullin plausibly alleged Article III standing to seek injunctive relief under ADA Title III when he had not visited the hotel and alleged only a general desire to stay there in the future.

## Decision

- The court granted Ashirward’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
- The court held that Mullin’s allegations did not show a sufficiently concrete and imminent threat of future injury to support injunctive relief under Title III.
- The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and permitted Mullin to amend to allege additional facts showing standing.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing requires (1) a concrete and particularized injury in fact that is actual or imminent, (2) causation fairly traceable to the defendant, and (3) redressability.
- Because Title III generally authorizes injunctive (forward-looking) relief, a plaintiff must plausibly plead a real and immediate likelihood of future harm, not just a past or hypothetical injury.
- When a plaintiff has not visited the public accommodation, allegations of future injury typically require more than a “some day” intention to go; the complaint must allege facts making a future visit and resulting exposure to the barrier plausibly imminent (for example, specific plans or other concrete indications of an upcoming visit).

## Conclusion

The court dismissed Mullin’s ADA Title III claim for lack of Article III standing because, although he alleged that the hotel’s 30-inch bed height would prevent him from using an accessible room, he had never visited the hotel and pleaded only a general intention to visit the area and stay there at an unspecified time, which did not plausibly show a real and immediate threat of future injury required for injunctive relief.


Mullin v. Ashirward Hospitality, Inc., 2024 WL 936322 (2024)