Aaron Dalton v. Simonson Station Stores, Inc., No. 19-3642 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Shepherd and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court correctly determined plaintiff lacked standing since he failed to show he would visit defendants' gas station in the imminent future but for the alleged architectural barriers.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3642 ___________________________ Aaron Dalton lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Simonson Station Stores, Inc.; Bemidji Management Company L.L.C. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: November 17, 2020 Filed: December 2, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Aaron Dalton appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) action. Upon careful de novo 1 The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. review, see Disability Support All. v. Heartwood Enters., LLC, 885 F.3d 543, 545 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review), we agree that Dalton lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief. Specifically, Dalton failed to show that he would visit defendants’ gas station in the imminent future but for the alleged architectural barriers, as he admitted that his only visits to the station were his initial visit and a court-ordered inspection; the station was 145 miles from his home; he presented no evidence regarding the frequency or purpose of his trips to the area; and he provided evidence of only vague plans to return to the station in the future. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 564 (1992) (affiants’ intent to return to previously visited places were “some day” intentions, which--without description of concrete plans--did not support finding of imminent injury required to establish standing in suit for injunctive relief). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
