Strickland v. Fischer Way Corp., 6:18-cv-38-Orl-31GJK. (2018)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20180314b21
Visitors: 14
Filed: Mar. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER GREGORY A. PRESNELL , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31) filed by Defendant Fischer Way Corp. d/b/a Subway #2621 (henceforth, "Fischer Way") and Plaintiff's response in opposition (Doc. 37). This is an ADA case in which Plaintiff, a handicapped individual, alleges that in December 2017 she visited facilities operated or owned by the Defendants, including the restaurant operated by Fischer Way; in doing so, she encountered discriminatio
Summary: ORDER GREGORY A. PRESNELL , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31) filed by Defendant Fischer Way Corp. d/b/a Subway #2621 (henceforth, "Fischer Way") and Plaintiff's response in opposition (Doc. 37). This is an ADA case in which Plaintiff, a handicapped individual, alleges that in December 2017 she visited facilities operated or owned by the Defendants, including the restaurant operated by Fischer Way; in doing so, she encountered discrimination..
More
ORDER
GREGORY A. PRESNELL, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31) filed by Defendant Fischer Way Corp. d/b/a Subway #2621 (henceforth, "Fischer Way") and Plaintiff's response in opposition (Doc. 37).
This is an ADA case in which Plaintiff, a handicapped individual, alleges that in December 2017 she visited facilities operated or owned by the Defendants, including the restaurant operated by Fischer Way; in doing so, she encountered discrimination in the form of architectural barriers that denied her full and equal access to the subject public accommodations. (Doc. 30). Paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint specifies the barriers she allegedly encountered.
In its Motion to Dismiss, Fischer Way claims that Plaintiff has failed to establish that she has standing to pursue her claims under the ADA. However, the Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff lives two miles from these properties, has visited them in the past, and intends to return within six months after the properties are made ADA compliant. (Doc. 30 at 2). At this stage of the proceedings, that is sufficient to establish standing. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Defendant's Motion is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
