SCOTT v. GIANT EAGLE MARKET et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Mark R. Hornak on 05/04/2018. (mao)

IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTJUCT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTIUCT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PATRICIA A. SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
V.

GIANT EAGLE MARKET ET AL,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:17-cv-00289

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Mark R. Hornak, United States District Judge
The Plaintiffs original Complaint in this action was dismissed as to all Defendants by
Order dated March 2, 2018, ECF No. 21, which was accompanied by a Memorandum Opinion,
ECF No. 20, explaining the basis for those dismissals. All dismissals were with prejudice, except
for the Plaintiffs ADA Title III claim as against Giant Eagle. That dismissal was without
prejudice, and with leave to amend. Among other things, the Court explained that the Plaintiff had
failed to assert a basis for her standing to seek relief under Title Ill, depriving the Court of subject
matter jurisdiction.
The Plaintiff timely filed an Amended Complaint, ECF No. 23, which was met by a Motion
to Dismiss by Giant Eagle, ECF No. 24/25. The Plaintiff was on notice of her obligation to respond
to that Motion, and the time in which to do so, ECF No. 3. To date, no response to that Motion has
been filed, and the matter is ripe for disposition.
The central basis of the Motion to Dismiss is that the Plaintiff has again failed to articulate
a factual basis for her standing to assert an ADA Title III claim as against the only remaining
Defendant, Giant Eagle. ECF No. 25 at 2-3. In particular, the Motion contends that the Plaintiff
has failed to set out any actual injury in fact as a result of alleged barrier to access, but in any event,

critical to an ADA Title III claim, she has failed to set out any factual showing of any frequency
of patronage of the involved Giant Eagle store, located in the Shadyside neighborhood of
Pittsburgh and about 12 miles from her home in Heidelberg, Pennsylvania. She also fails to set
forth any definite plan to return to that store, nor any facts relative to her past and future anticipated
frequency of visitation to that store or even its environs.
In the Court's prior Memorandum Opinion dismissing the Plaintiffs ADA claims,
particularly those alleged under that statute's Title III, the Court laid out with specificity exactly
what the Plaintiff would have to plead to make out such a claim. ECF No. 20 at 6-8, and what she
would have to do to meet the necessary pleading requiremer.ts. ECF No. 20 at 9-10. The Defendant
Giant Eagle is correct that the Amended Complaint does not appear to even attempt to do so, and
for the reasons set out in the Court's prior Memorandum Opinion, the Amended Complaint also
fails to set forth a basis for the Court to conclude that the Plaintiff has standing to assert the ADA
claims she seeks to allege.
For those reasons, and the reasons set forth in the Court's Memorandum Opinion at ECF
No. 20 as to such matters, the Court grants the Motion to Dismiss at ECF No. 24, and this action
is dismissed for a lack of standing on the Plaintiffs part.
An appropriate Order will enter.

Mark R. Hornak
United States District Judge
Dated: May 4, 2018
cc: All counsel of record

2