Submitted: November 13, 2018
from United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota - Minneapolis
COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
COLLOTON, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Davis sued the owner of a restaurant and the owner of real
property where the restaurant is located, alleging violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42
U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Davis uses a wheelchair
and claims that deficiencies in the restaurant parking lot
deprived her of full and equal enjoyment of the restaurant.
After the owners made changes to the lot, the district
court dismissed Davis's complaint as moot
and denied her motion for leave to amend the complaint. Davis
appeals, and we affirm the decision, although we clarify that
the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is without prejudice.
claims that on both May 3, 2016, and March 4, 2017, she
attempted to patronize Emma Krumbee's, a restaurant in
Belle Plaine, Minnesota. Her complaint alleged that the
defendants failed to comply with the ADA, because "[t]he
'Emma Krumbee's' customer parking lot had
approximately 130 total parking spaces, but had only 3 spaces
reserved as accessible parking spaces, rather than the
required 5." The three reserved spaces were also
deficient, she asserted, because one lacked an accessibility
sign and the signs for the other two spaces were not posted
high enough above the ground. One of the three spaces
allegedly did not have an adjacent access aisle. Finally, the
complaint asserted that the accessible route from the three
reserved parking spaces to the restaurant traversed broken
asphalt and required travel through a vehicular way rather
than a sidewalk.
sued the owner of Emma Krumbee's and the owner of the
real property. Her complaint alleged that the parking lot
deficiencies violated the ADA and the Minnesota Human Rights
Act, and she sought an injunction directing the owners to
remedy those problems. The owners moved to dismiss the
complaint for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that they had
remedied the alleged deficiencies and that the case was
moved for summary judgment and claimed that the parking lot
still did not have enough accessible spaces. Even with the
improvements, Davis argued, the lot had only four accessible
spaces, but her complaint had alleged that five were
required. Davis also moved to amend her complaint to add
allegations of deficiencies inside the Emma Krumbee's
district court dismissed Davis's ADA claim as moot and
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state
law claim. Because the owners raised a factual attack on the
district court's subject matter jurisdiction, the court
was permitted to resolve factual disputes and was not
required to accept as true every allegation in the pleadings.
See Carlsen v. GameStop, Inc., 833 F.3d 903, 908
(8th Cir. 2016).
Davis alleged that the customer parking lot included
approximately 130 spaces, the district court found that it
included only eighty-eight. The court explained that Davis,
to arrive at a total of 130 spaces, had counted spaces from
an adjacent overflow lot. The court determined, however, that
the overflow lot was a separate "facility" under
the relevant ADA regulations, see 36 C.F.R. pt.
1191, app. B § 208.2, and that any claim regarding the
overflow lot was not properly before the court.
ADA regulations require four accessible parking spaces for a
facility with 76 to 100 spaces, the court concluded the
owners had now provided "a sufficient number of
accessible parking spaces for the Restaurant," denied
Davis's motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the
complaint as moot. The court also denied Davis's motion
to amend her complaint as futile, because Davis had never
entered the restaurant and thus lacked standing to litigate
alleged ADA violations occurring inside. We review the
district court's legal conclusions de novo, its
factual findings for clear error, and its denial of the
motion for leave to amend for abuse of discretion. See
Branson Label, Inc. v. City of Branson, 793 F.3d 910,
914-15 (8th Cir. 2015); Enervations, Inc. v. Minn. Mining
& Mfg. Co., 380 F.3d 1066, 1068 (8th Cir. 2004).
case becomes moot-and therefore no longer a 'Case' or
'Controversy' for purposes of Article III-when the
issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties
lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome."
Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013)
(internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant's
voluntary compliance with a plaintiff's demands will moot
a case if the defendant shows that "it is absolutely
clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be
expected to recur." Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted). In the context of the ADA, we have held that
a defendant's permanent physical improvements-such as the
installation of parking spaces, ramps, pull and grab bars,
and chair lifts-are sufficient to eliminate a case or
controversy if they provide the requested relief. S ...