Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

BMD Obtains Dismissal of ADA Title III Suit Against National Outlet Mall Chain

Client Alert
February 6, 2018

On January 12, 2018, Brennan, Manna & Diamond obtained the dismissal of an Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) lawsuit filed against Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

The suit, which was brought under Title III of the ADA, alleged that Tanger’s Byron Center, Michigan outlet mall contained barriers to access in violation of the ADA’s accessibility requirements. The plaintiff demanded prospective injunctive relief, including a retrofit of the entire mall, as well as expert witness and attorneys’ fees.

BMD moved to dismiss the case for lack of standing. Unlike a conventional suit, where a plaintiff seeking monetary damages must show a past injury to possess legal standing, an ADA Title III plaintiff must show a threat of prospective future harm in order to recover. Typically, this means that the plaintiff must plead (and prove) that he or she has reason to continue to visit the public accommodation in question and will continue to be injured by the facility’s alleged non-compliance with the ADA.

In its opinion granting Tanger’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, United States Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody held that the plaintiff’s Amended Complaint failed to adequately plead prospective future injury. In particular, the Court noted that “[v]ague and conclusory allegations that a plaintiff intends to return to a location […] are insufficient to maintain an ADA claim.” Applying this standard to the plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the Court held that his “vague and conclusory statements regarding his alleged intent to return” to Tanger’s Byron Center property “are insufficient.” On this record, the Court found that the plaintiff “failed to sufficiently allege that he will suffer a future injury in the absence of injunctive relief.”

Recognizing the cost that ADA Title III actions pose to owners and operators of public accommodations, BMD’s experienced team of ADA litigators uses a proactive approach to seek the early and cost-effective resolution of cases before proceeding with expensive expert discovery. BMD was proud to obtain this result for Tanger Factory Outlets, one of the largest and most iconic outlet mall chains in the country.

BMD Partners Christopher Congeni and Daniel Rudary represented Tanger Factory Outlet Centers in this case. The citation for Court’s opinion is Saar v. Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc., W.D. Mich. No. 1:17-cv-41, 2018 WL 387962 (Jan. 12, 2018).

Litigation
Client Alert

Patient Abandonment and Termination

November 17, 2022Healthcare professionals have a responsibility to patients with whom they have established a treatment relationship. However, there may be some instances when they will need to terminate their relationship with a patient. FAQs for patient abandonment and termination are provided to help guide physicians.Client Alert

A Business or Person Who Owes You Money Has Filed for Bankruptcy. Now What?

November 16, 2022When you receive a notice that someone you do business with has filed for bankruptcy, it is important to act quickly to determine your rights in the bankruptcy process and to protect them. Here are seven things to do right away.Client Alert, News Article

Recent Litigation Challenges the Affordable Care Act Preventive Services Requirement

November 15, 2022The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been met with numerous legal challenges. The most recent legal challenge, Braidwood Management Inc. v. Becerra, could affect millions of people covered by private health insurance.Client Alert

340C – Prospective Legislation to Protect Federally Qualified Health Centers

November 14, 2022Advocates for Community Health (ACH), an organization created to implement policy and advocacy initiatives for health care systems across the United States, has begun drafting legislation that is geared towards protecting Federally Qualified Health Centers (“FQHCs”) enrolled in the 340B Program, which is being dubbed “340C.”Multimedia, Client Alert

Getting Paid to Vote

November 7, 2022Can you get paid to vote? Election Day is upon us and employees across the country are asking whether they can get paid to vote. Essentially, can they take paid leave of a few hours to go to the polling location to cast their vote in a midterm election or presidential election. Well, it depends on the state where the employee works.
Older posts
Newer posts