Filed: Mar. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 04, 2016
Summary: ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE JAMES LAWRENCE KING , District Judge . THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (DE 9), filed January 12, 2016. 1 The Court has additionally considered Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (DE 18), filed February 8, 2016, and Plaintiff's Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss (DE 19), filed February 13, 2016. This is an action for injunctive relief under Title III of the Americans with Disabiliti
Summary: ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE JAMES LAWRENCE KING , District Judge . THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (DE 9), filed January 12, 2016. 1 The Court has additionally considered Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (DE 18), filed February 8, 2016, and Plaintiff's Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss (DE 19), filed February 13, 2016. This is an action for injunctive relief under Title III of the Americans with Disabilitie..
More
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
JAMES LAWRENCE KING, District Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (DE 9), filed January 12, 2016.1 The Court has additionally considered Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (DE 18), filed February 8, 2016, and Plaintiff's Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss (DE 19), filed February 13, 2016.
This is an action for injunctive relief under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). In his Complaint (DE 1), Plaintiff alleges that he is an individual suffering from a "qualified disability" under the ADA and that he personally visited the real property located at 7401 S.W. 40 Street, Miami, FL, which is occupied by Defendant The Hertz Corporation ("Hertz") and owned by Defendant 7401 Bird Road, LLC ("Bird"). Plaintiff conclusorily alleges that the real property is a place of "public accommodation" under the ADA, and lists several alleged ADA violations found on the outside of the property. DE 1 at ¶ 15 (e.g., non-compliant parking facilities, excessively sloped ramps, and lack of signage). Plaintiff additionally states that, through these violations, "Defendants have discriminated against [him] . . . by denying access to, and full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and/or accommodations" at the property. Id. at ¶ 11. Further, Plaintiff "shall suffer a future injury as Plaintiff intends to would like to [sic] return and enjoy the goods and/or services at the [property] on a spontaneous but full and equal basis." Id. at ¶ 13.
Upon review, it is plain that the Complaint contains numerous fatal flaws. See Barberi v. Atl. Windows and Shutters, Inc., No. 15-21679-KMM, Order Granting Motion to Dismiss (DE 16), (S.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2015) (granting motion to dismiss identical complaint). Here, as in the case before Chief Judge K. Michael Moore,
Plaintiff does not state the nature of his injury or disability, other than to say he uses a wheelchair and to conclusorily state that he has a "qualified disability" under the ADA. Plaintiff does not state what services were offered at [the property]. Plaintiff does not identify the date on or about which he visited [the property] or a general period of time during which he visited. The Complaint does not state where Plaintiff lives, how far he lives from [the property], or whether he is a frequent visitor to the area in which [the property] is located. Plaintiffs plan to return is of the utmost indefinitiveness, simply stating that "Plaintiff would like to return" on a "spontaneous" basis. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 564 ("`[S]ome day' intentions—without any description of concrete plans, or indeed even any specification of when the some day will be—do not support a finding of the `actual or imminent' injury that our cases require."). Other courts in this district have found under similar circumstances that complains containing these types of barebones recitation of allegations lack the concreteness to establish standing, (citations omitted).
Id. at 4-5. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts no facts supporting his conclusion that the property is a place of "public accommodation" under the ADA.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (DE 9) be, and the same is, hereby GRANTED and the Complaint (DE 1) be, and the same is, hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED.
