ST. LOUIS - U.S. District Judge Richard Webber has denied Dierbergs Four Seasons' motion to dismiss an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim brought by "serial plaintiffs" with "extensive litigation histories across the country" and at the Eastern District of Missouri.
In a Feb. 27 ruling, Webber held that plaintiffs John Meggs and the Independence Project had established "a concrete, particularized, actual injury" to satisfy requirements of standing in federal court.
Dierbergs had argued that Meggs and the Independence Project - a nonprofit disability rights advocacy group that sues businesses over alleged ADA violations - failed to show the likelihood of a future injury because they are 1,800 and 950 miles away from the property where Meggs' alleged injury took place.
"Meggs incorporated his business in Missouri only one month before filing this suit, and Meggs lacks definitiveness in his intent to return to Defendant’s shopping center," Dierbergs further argued.
The company also argued that the business Meggs created one month before the suit was filed - J-Loop Entertainment - has no contact information on its site or even a description of what the business is.
"Meggs has not stated definitive plans to return to St. Louis ... and Meggs does not indicate how often he travels to St. Louis to conduct business," Diebergs argued, according to the ruling.
In response, Meggs asserted dates that he intended to return to the Dierbergs store.
"Further, Plaintiffs argue Meggs' status as a tester for the Independence Project does not preclude him from establishing standing," the ruling states.
Under the ADA, discrimination is defined in part as “a failure to remove architectural barriers, and communication barriers that are structural in nature, in existing facilities . . . where such removal is readily achievable."
For a plaintiff to establish the "injury-in-fact" requirement for standing -- which focuses on knowledge of barriers and that one would visit the building in the "imminent" future "but for" those barriers -- there has to be a "concrete and particularized" harm that is not "conjectural or hypothetical."
"Although Defendant asserts the Court should view Plaintiffs’ allegations suspiciously because of Meggs’ status as a tester for the Independence Project, the Eighth Circuit has determined tester cases are allowed to proceed and do not prevent standing from being established," Webber wrote.
"...[T]he Court finds Plaintiffs have established a concrete, particularized, actual injury to satisfy the requirements of Article III standing."