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
- 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.