Cohan v. Ocean Properties, LTD.
Filing
15
OPINION AND ORDER denying without prejudice 7 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 1/21/2014. (ir)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 13-81163-CIV-MARRA
HOWARD COHAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
OCEAN PROPERTIES, LTD.,
d/b/a DELRAY BEACH MARRIOTT,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER AND OPINION
This cause is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Case as
Moot (DE 7). The Court has carefully considered the motion, response, reply and is otherwise
fully advised in the premises.
Defendant moves the Court for an order dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint as Moot.
Plaintiff has filed suit against Defendant asserting violations under the American with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq. (“ADA”) due to the absence of a pool lift chair on
Defendant’s premises. (DE 1.) Defendant states it has provided Plaintiff with documentation that
a pool lift chair has been installed. In its moving papers, Defendant does not state under which
provision of Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure it is proceeding. In its response
memorandum, Plaintiff argues that whether the barrier has been removed is a question of fact
that cannot be resolved at this stage. In reply, Defendant states that it is making a factual attack
on subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and states that it will be filing affidavits
and photographs establishing its compliance with ADA 1009.2 (availability of pool lift chairs)
shortly. Defendant’s reply was filed on December 30, 2013, and to date the Court’s docket does
not reflect that these documents have been filed.
Attacks on subject matter jurisdiction based on Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure come in two forms-facial attacks and factual attacks. In a facial attack, the Court
looks only at the complaint. See Lawrence v. Dunbar, 919 F.2d 1525, 1528–29 (11th Cir.1990).
A factual attack, on the other hand, “challenges the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in
fact, irrespective of the pleadings, and matters outside the pleadings, such as testimony and
affidavits, are considered.” Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 613 F.2d 507, 511 (5th
Cir.1980).1 The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Kokkonen
v. Guardian Life, Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Menchaca, 613 F.2d at 511.
Based on Defendant’s moving papers, it is making a factual attack on this Court’s
jurisdiction. However, it has not submitted any evidence to support its jurisdictional challenge.
Although Plaintiff does have the burden to establish jurisdiction, in view of Defendant’s failure
to present evidence to support its motion, Plaintiff was not afforded an adequate opportunity to
do so. Therefore, the best course of action is to allow Defendant to re-file the motion with
supporting evidence. Since mootness addresses the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, it can be
raised at any time. If and when Defendant refiles its motion to dismiss, Plaintiff can then submit
evidence that challenges Defendant’s assertions.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to
1
The decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, as that court
existed on September 30, 1981, handed down by that court prior to the close of business on that
date, shall be binding as precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, for this court, the district courts, and
the bankruptcy courts in the circuit. Bonner v. Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981)
(en banc).
Page 2 of 3
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Case as Moot (DE 7) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County,
Florida, this 21st day of January, 2014.
______________________________________
KENNETH A. MARRA
United States District Judge
Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?