National Alliance for Accessibility, Inc. et al v. Millbank Partners - Riva Lmited Partnership
Filing
27
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 9/11/13. (jnls, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR
ACCESSIBILITY, INC. and
DENISE PAYNE,
*
*
Plaintiffs,
*
v.
Civil Action No. RDB-12-3223
*
MILLBANK HOTEL PARTNERS
and MILLBANK PARTNERS,
*
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently pending before this Court is the Motion of Plaintiffs National Alliance for
Accessibility, Inc., and Denise Payne for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No.
24). Defendant Millbank Partners1 opposes Plaintiff’s Motion on the grounds that they lack
standing and have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 25). The
Court has reviewed the submissions by both parties and finds that no hearing is necessary. See
Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2011). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Complaint is DENIED.
FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This Court accepts as true the facts alleged in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint. See Aziz v.
Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388, 390 (4th Cir. 2011). The facts of this case are thoroughly described
in the Memorandum Opinion issued by this Court on February 20, 2013 (ECF No. 22) and will
1
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint named both Millbank Hotel Partners and Millbank Partners as defendants.
Plaintiffs’ Proposed Second Amended Complaint eliminates the references to Millbank Hotel Partners and names
only Millbank Partners. Accordingly, only Millbank Partners responds to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Complaint.
1
not be recited in full here. See Mem. Op. 2/20/2013, pp. 1-3 (ECF No. 22). Suffice it to say,
Plaintiff Denise Payne (“Payne”) is a wheel-chair bound person with cerebral palsy, and Plaintiff
National Alliance for Accessibility, Inc. (“NAA”) is a non-profit entity whose stated purpose is
to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C § 12181, in
places of public accommodation. Id. at 1-2. Defendant Millbank Partners owns and operates a
Best Western Hotel (“Best Western”) located on Riva Road in Annapolis, Maryland. Id. at 2.
Plaintiffs allege numerous violations of the ADA at Defendant’s Best Western, where Payne was
an overnight guest on April 24, 2012. Id. at 2.
On February 20, 2013, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint without
prejudice, finding that Plaintiffs lacked standing and had failed to state a claim (ECF No. 22).
Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint on
February 25, 2013 (ECF No. 24). Plaintiff’s attached a Proposed Second Amended Complaint to
their Motion as Exhibit 1 (ECF No. 24-1). The Proposed Second Amended Complaint contained
several additions that aimed to explain the effect of the various ADA violations on Ms. Payne.
In addition, the Proposed Second Amended Complaint added a sentence re-emphasizing that Ms.
Payne planned to return to the Best Western on April 22, 2013.2 On March 14, 2013, Defendant
Millbank Partners filed a response to Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 25), arguing that Plaintiffs still
lacked standing to bring suit and that amendment would be futile. Def.’s Opp’n, p. 8, 3/14/2013,
ECF No 25.
2
Plaintiffs’ original complaint stated Ms. Payne’s plans to return to the Best Western. Pls.’ Compl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 1.
Plaintiff’s Proposed Second Amended Complaint revises the same paragraph to state that Ms. Payne plans to return
“pursuant to a confirmed reservation.” Pls.’ Proposed Sec. Am. Comp., ¶ 6, ECF No. 24-1. In addition, Plaintiffs
reemphasized this point later in the Proposed Second Amended Complaint, stating that “Plaintiff Denise Payne
intends to return to Defendant’s facility on April 22, 2013.” Id. ¶ 8. There is no contention that she ever returned.
2
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may amend his
complaint once “as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served” or “by
leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party.” In general, leave to amend a
complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a) shall be “freely” granted “when justice so requires.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(2); see also Lance v. Prince George’s County, Md., 199 F. Supp. 2d 297, 300-01
(D. Md. 2002). The matter, however, is committed to the discretion of the district court, see
Simmons v. United Mortg. & Loan Inv., LLC, 634 F.3d 754, 769 (4th Cir. 2011), and the district
judge may deny leave to amend “when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing
party, the moving party has acted in bad faith, or the amendment would be futile.” Equal Rights
Center v. Niles Bolton Assocs., 602 F.3d 597, 603 (4th Cir. 2010); see also Foman v. Davis, 371
U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has stated that Rule 15
“gives effect to the federal policy in favor or resolving cases on their merits instead of disposing
of them on technicalities.” Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006).
ANALYSIS
While this Court recognizes the liberal standard under which leave to amend a complaint
is generally evaluated, resolution of this case requires consideration of a more fundamental
principle of federal court jurisdiction. Ultimately, this Court finds that amendment would be
futile because Plaintiffs’ suit, as alleged in the Proposed Second Amended Complaint, is moot.3
A. Plaintiffs’ Case Is Now Moot.
3
The Court recognizes Millbank Partner’s position that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended
Complaint is untimely considering that no motion to vacate the court’s February 20, 2013 ruling was filed pursuant
to Rule 59(e). See Def.’s Opp’n, at p. 2-3. The court, however, exercises its discretion to interpret the Plaintiffs’
Motion as both a motion to vacate and a motion seeking leave to amend. See 15 Moore’s Federal Practice – Civil §
15.13[2] (3d. ed.) (“If a plaintiff files a post-judgment motion in the district court that merely seeks leave of court
under Rule 15(a)(2) to amend the complaint, the district court has the discretion, but is not required, to treat the
motion as including either a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment, or a Rule 60 motion for relief from
judgment.”). Under the circumstances, this Court addresses the mootness of the case as a whole.
3
Article III of the U.S. Constitution provides that federal courts have jurisdiction over only
“Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. And as the United States Supreme
Court has made clear, “an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at
the time the complaint is filed.” Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67
(1997). As this Court has previously noted in other actions filed by the Plaintiffs in this case, in
suits seeking injunctive or declarative relief, plaintiffs must demonstrate a personal stake in the
outcome that “exist[s] at the commencement of the litigation (standing) [and] . . . continue[s]
throughout its existence (mootness).” Nat’l Alliance for Accessibility v. CMG Bethesda Owner
LLC, No. JFM-12-1864, 2012 WL 6108244, at *8 (D. Md. Dec. 7, 2012) (quoting Friends of the
Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000). The issue of
mootness may be raised sua sponte because “mootness goes to the heart of the Article III
jurisdiction of the [federal] courts.”
Nat’l Alliance for Accessibility, Inc. v. C1 Maryland
Business Trust, No. PWG-12-3224, 2013 WL 4229262, at *4 (D. Md. Aug. 14, 2013) (quoting
Friedman’s, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2002)).
Applying these principles to this case, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that (1) there is a “real
and immediate threat” of “some future, direct injury”; (2) Plaintiffs have “concrete, specific
plans to return to the locus of the injury”; and (3) Plaintiff Payne “is likely to suffer the same
type of injuries upon her return.” Mem. Op., 2/20/2013, pp. 5-6. This Court emphasized these
requirements in its February 20, 2013 Memorandum Opinion (and District Judge Paul Grimm
also reiterated them in an August 14, 2013 Memorandum Opinion and Order in a case brought
by the same Plaintiffs). Id.; C1 Maryland Business Trust, 2013 WL 4229262, at *4-*5.
Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s Proposed Second Amended Complaint now fails to adequately
address these issues and, as such, is moot. Specifically, Plaintiffs originally alleged that Payne
4
would return to the Best Western on April 22, 2013. Pls.’ Compl. ¶ 6. That allegation has
remained unchanged in Plaintiffs’ Proposed Second Amended Complaint. Pls.’ Proposed Sec.
Am. Compl. ¶ 6. As it is now September of 2013, Payne’s planned return date has passed and
there is no contention that she did in fact return. Plaintiffs do not allege that Payne or any other
NAA member plans to visit the Best Western on any other date in the future. Nor have Plaintiffs
taken any other action to address the mootness issue in the five and a half months since April 22,
2013.
Accordingly, Ms. Payne no longer has a “personal interest in the outcome of this
litigation,” and the case is now moot with respect to her claims. Cf. CMG Bethesda, 2012 WL
6108244, at *5 (dismissing complaint as moot where plaintiff stated intent to return on a specific
date, that date passed, and plaintiff did not amend to state intent to return at a future date); C1
Maryland Business Trust, 2013 WL 4229262, at *6 (same).
The case is now moot with respect to NAA as well. As this Court stated in C1 Maryland
Business Trust, “[a]n association cannot bring a suit on behalf of its members if no individual
member can maintain the suit.” 2013 WL 4229262, at *6; see also Hunt v. Wash. State Apple
Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 342 (1977) (“‘[To] have standing solely as the representative
of its members,” an “association must allege that its members, or any one of them, are suffering
immediate or threatened injury as a result of the challenged action of the sort that would make
out a justiciable cause had the members themselves brought suit.’”) (quoting Warth v. Seldin,
422 U.S. 490, 511 (1975)). Because there is no allegation that Ms. Payne nor any other member
of NAA plans to return to the Best Western, there is no individual who can justify NAA’s further
presence in this case.
5
B. Because Plaintiffs’ Case Is Now Moot, Amendment Would Be Futile.
As this case involves a motion for leave to amend, the procedural posture is slightly
different than those raised in CMG Bethesda and C1 Maryland Business Trust; accordingly, a
few more points are necessary. Generally, leave to amend is liberally granted after a motion to
dismiss without prejudice. See Lance, 199 F. Supp. 2d at 300-01. However, where amendment
would be futile, the district court has discretion to deny the motion for leave to amend. See
Equal Rights Center, 602 F.3d at 603. Specifically, the motion may be denied on futility
grounds “when the proposed amendment is clearly insufficient or frivolous on its face.” Johnson
v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 510 (4th Cir. 1986).
Here, Plaintiffs’ Proposed Second Amended Complaint is clearly insufficient as the
issues raised by the Second Amended Complaint are now moot. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is futile. See Alpha Iota Omega Christian
Fraternity v. Moeser, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28065, at *35 (M.D.N.C. May 4, 2006)
(“Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the proposed amended complaint is futile because even if it
were allowed, the case would still be moot and because it is based on an outdated, and therefore
false, state of affairs.”).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 24) is DENIED.
A separate Order follows.
Dated:
September 11, 2013
/s/_________________________________
Richard D. Bennett
United States District Judge
6
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?