Good ADA Title III Standing Opinion

In Young v. Pasha, Inc., 2006 WL 783394 (S.D. Ohio, Mar. 27, 2006), Judge Sargus of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio issued a good standing ruling. The case was an ADA Title III suit. The plaintiff, who uses a wheelchair, found the defendant's hotel inaccessible while on a two-day sweep of hotels in Columbus. The plaintiff sued the defendant, and 12 other hotels he visited during that sweep, for violation of ADA Title III. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing, on the ground that the plaintiff did not really intend to return to the hotel. But Judge Sargus denied the motion. Because the case came before the court on a motion to dismiss, Judge Sargus was required to take as true the following allegations in the complaint:

"Plaintiff, Randy Young, wishes to return to the property to avail himself of the goods and services offered to the public at the property." (Id.; see also id. at ¶ 8 (referring to Plaintiff's "continued desire to visit the Defendant's premises"); id. at ¶ 12 (noting "Plaintiff desires to visit the defendant's property now and in the future not only to avail himself of the goods and services available at the property but to assure himself that this property is in compliance with the ADA so that he and others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the property, without fear or discrimination.")

Although Judge Sargus expressed "a skepticism that Plaintiff genuinely desires to return to all thirteen hotels in the Columbus area to avail himself of the goods and services those establishments provide," he concluded "that the allegations are sufficient to establish, at this preliminary stage, that Plaintiff has standing to pursue his claims and that this action presents a justiciable case or controversy."