Christopher M. Hicks sued L.S. Richardson Revocable Living Trust and LC Richardson RVOC Living TR UTA 12 13 2011, LLC d/b/a LC’s Bar-B-Q in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Factual Overview
Plaintiff Hicks, who suffers from multiple disabilities including PTSD, traumatic brain injury, ulcerative colitis, and other conditions, requires the use of a cane approximately fifty percent of the time and relies on a service dog. On October 16, 2023, Hicks visited defendants’ restaurant with his service dog where staff allegedly demanded he leave because his service dog was not allowed. While Hicks was able to finish his meal, he claimed he was ultimately forced to leave. Hicks also alleged numerous other ADA violations regarding architectural barriers both inside and outside the restaurant. Although Hicks resides in Arkansas, he claimed he frequently travels to Kansas City and would like to return to the restaurant once it becomes accessible and staff are properly trained regarding service animals.
Legal Analysis
Standing for Service Animal Claim:The court found that while being asked to leave a restaurant due to a service animal could establish an ADA injury, Hicks failed to demonstrate a concrete threat of future harm. His stated intention to return “some day” once improvements were made was deemed insufficient to establish standing.
Standing for Architectural Barriers: The court determined that while Hicks may have had standing to challenge ADA violations he did not personally encounter inside the restaurant, such standing would only extend to violations that presented risks related to his specific disabilities. The court found Hicks failed to plausibly allege that the architectural violations were connected to his disabilities or otherwise injured him.
The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that Hicks failed to adequately plead a sufficient injury-in-fact to establish Article III standing.
Schrag on Law 