Steelman v. Pirates Cove Florida Plaza, Inc.

Filing 45

ORDER granting 40 Motion for summary judgment, directing Clerk to enter judgment and close file. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 5/1/2013. (ED)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
CONNIE STEELMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:12-cv-370-Orl-31TBS

PIRATES COVE FLORIDA PLAZA,
INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court without a hearing on the Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 40) filed by the Defendant, Pirates Cove Florida Plaza, Inc. (“Pirates Cove”), the
response in opposition (Doc. 43) filed by the Plaintiff, Connie Steelman (“Steelman”), and the
reply (Doc. 44) filed by Pirates Cove.
I.

Background

Pirates Cove operates a miniature golf course in Kissimmee. Steelman, who was originally
represented by counsel but now appears pro se, alleged that she encountered barriers when she
visited the Defendant’s facility, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
(Doc. 1). The discovery period in this case closed in March 2013. (Doc. 24 at 1). Pirates Cove
seeks summary judgment on the grounds that Steelman lacks standing to pursue her claim because
there is no evidence she intends to return to the Defendant’s establishment, which is located more
than 100 miles from her home. Pirates Cove also argues that Steelman has failed to produce
expert witness reports or any other evidence needed to support her claim that Defendant’s
establishment is in violation of the ADA.

II.

Legal Standards
A.

Standing

Standing is a threshold jurisdictional question which must be addressed prior to and
independent of the merits of a party’s claims. Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 974
(11th Cir. 2005). To establish standing to obtain injunctive relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate a
“real and immediate threat of future injury by the defendant”. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461
U.S. 95, 101-02 (1983).

Although general factual allegations of injury resulting from the

defendant’s conduct may suffice at the pleading stage, at the final stage of the litigation a plaintiff
must set forth, by affidavit or other evidence, specific facts to prove standing. CAMP Legal
Defense Fund, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 451 F.3d 1257, 1269 (11th Cir. 2006).
B.

Summary Judgment

A party is entitled to summary judgment when the party can show that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Which facts are material depends on the
substantive law applicable to the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
The moving party bears the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Clark
v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991).
When a party moving for summary judgment points out an absence of evidence on a
dispositive issue for which the non-moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, the nonmoving
party must “go beyond the pleadings and by [his] own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine
issue for trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324-25 (1986) (internal quotations and
citation omitted). Thereafter, summary judgment is mandated against the nonmoving party who
fails to make a showing sufficient to establish a genuine issue of fact for trial. Id. at 322, 324-25.

-2-

The party opposing a motion for summary judgment must rely on more than conclusory
statements or allegations unsupported by facts. Evers v. Gen. Motors Corp., 770 F.2d 984, 986
(11th Cir. 1985) (“conclusory allegations without specific supporting facts have no probative
value”).
III.

Analysis

In her response, Steelman offers no rebuttal to the Defendant’s argument that she lacks
standing. Thus, the Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on this score.
As for the other argument advanced by Pirates Cove, Steelman asserts that the company
has made some post-suit alterations to its property and that this proves that she was discriminated
against. (Doc. 43 at 1). However, Steelman does not identify the alterations or point to any
evidence, aside from her unsworn assertion, that they occurred. She also makes no effort to match
up those (alleged) alterations to the allegations of her complaint so as to show that she previously
encountered those now-remedied barriers. Her conclusory statement to that effect is insufficient to
meet her burden under Rule 56. Pirates Cove is also entitled to summary judgment on this point.
IV.

Conclusion

In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 40) is GRANTED. The Clerk
is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff and, thereafter, to
close the file.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on May 1, 2013.

Copies furnished to:

-3-

Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-4-