MICHALARES-OWENS

v.

ME, MYSELF & I, INC.

M.D. Fla. | 2020-08-21

No. 8:19-cv-03055

District Court, M.D. Florida (2020) Positive Treatment

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege facts demonstrating a real and immediate injury in fact, and thus lacked standing for injunctive relief.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging violations by the defendants' business. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the plaintiff lacked st…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Intent To Return Voluntary Cessation Injury In Fact Mootness

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Intent To Return cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

1845-T-17AEP, 2014 WL 5488805, at *12 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2014); see Sheely v. MRI Radiology Network, P.A., 505 F. 3d 1173, 1184 (11th Cir. 2007). As a determination on voluntary cessation is unnecessary at this point because Plaintiff otherwise lacks standing, the Court makes no finding on the status of the restaurant. But Defendants correctly argue that if the restaurant is permanently closed the case is moot.

The Court grants the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. Dkt. 30. If Plaintiff chooses to amend her complaint, she must address the standing issues and the issue of mootness as Defendants assert the restaurant was closed. Should

Plaintiff be unable to replead her ADA claim within fourteen days, this matter will be closed. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on August 21, 2020.

/s/ William F. Jung

WILLIAM F. JUNG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of Record

Footnotes

1 The Amended Complaint appears to be copied from the original complaint on the docket, as the case number and docket entry appear where the page breaks on the original complaint were, often awkwardly breaking up sentences in the Amended Complaint. Dkt. 26 at 3–7, 9–12. In the prior Order the Court provided Plaintiff with the four factors used to establish a real and immediate injury in fact. Dkt. 23 at 3–4. The factors are: “(1) the proximity of the defendant’s business to the plaintiff’s residence; (2) the plaintiff’s past patronage of the defendant’s business; (3) the definiteness of the plaintiff’s plan to return; and (4) the frequency of the plaintiff’s travel near the defendant’s business.” Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F. 3d 1323, 1337 n.6 (11th Cir. 2013). This Court found that in her initial complaint Plaintiff failed to allege facts that indicate a future injury because she lacked an intent to return and had no history of past patronage. In her Amended Complaint Plaintiff did not address either of these factors. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden for injunctive relief for the same reasons stated in the prior Order. Dkt. 23. Defendants also argue that since Plaintiff initially filed her complaint the restaurant has permanently closed. Dkt. 30 at 4. They provided affidavits to support this contention. Dkts. 29 & 32. There is a heavy burden in persuading the Court that the challenged conduct cannot be easily revived when a defendant makes a claim of voluntary cessation. Houston v. 7-Eleven, Inc., No. 8:13-CV-

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2013)
Sheely v. MRI Radiology Network, P.A., 505 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2007)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw