Submitted: June 12, 2018
from United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota - Minneapolis
WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
Hillesheim alleges that Holiday Stationstores discriminated
against him by failing to have an accessible parking lot at
one of its stores. Hillesheim's complaint identifies
three alleged problems with the parking lot, each giving rise
to a separate claim. For two of the three claims, Hillesheim
suffered no injury, so we vacate the district court's
decision and instruct the court on remand to return them to
state court. We remand the third claim, even though
Hillesheim has standing to assert it, to allow the district
court to consider whether to send it back to state court with
is paralyzed from the waist down and uses a wheelchair for
mobility. When Hillesheim visited a Holiday store in Mankato,
Minnesota, he observed that the store's two
handicap-accessible parking spaces were not marked with
vertical sign posts. One of the spaces also lacked an
adjacent access aisle, which provides extra room for
individuals with disabilities to move in and out of their
vehicles. Also present was a garbage can near the top of the
curb ramp leading into the store. Hillesheim claims that he
could not have safely navigated the ramp in his wheelchair,
so instead of risking injury, he decided not to enter the
store. These three alleged defects are at the heart of this
inspected the parking lot and fixed the alleged defects. It
removed the handicap-accessible space lacking an access aisle
because it determined that the Americans with Disabilities
Act ("ADA") only required it to have one space, not
two, given the size of the parking lot. It also placed an
ADA-compliant vertical sign above the remaining space and
removed the garbage can from the curb ramp out of an
"abundance of care."
Holiday made these changes, however, Hillesheim filed a
lawsuit in state court, alleging violations of the ADA and
the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). Holiday
removed the case to federal court. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1367, 1441(a). After the close of
discovery, Holiday filed a motion for summary judgment in
which it asked the district court to dismiss the case for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Hillesheim conceded that
Holiday's remedial measures, completed after Holiday
removed the case to federal court, had mooted his ADA claims.
He did not budge on his MHRA claims, however, arguing that he
had standing to assert them because the lack of access to the
store had injured him. But he nonetheless urged the district
court to return the MHRA claims to state court because no
federal claims remained.
district court granted Holiday's motion for summary
judgment. In addition to dismissing Hillesheim's ADA
claims, the court dismissed Hillesheim's MHRA claims with
prejudice rather than remanding them to state court. On
appeal, Hillesheim challenges the court's treatment of
his MHRA claims.
review de novo the district court's determination that
Hillesheim lacked Article III standing. Park v. Forest
Serv. of the U.S., 205 F.3d 1034, 1036 (8th Cir. 2000).
To pursue state-law claims in federal court, a party must
prove that it has standing under Article III's
case-or-controversy requirement. U.S. Const. art. III, §
2, cl. 1; Hughes v. City of Cedar Rapids, 840 F.3d
987, 993 (8th Cir. 2016).
the "irreducible constitutional minimum" for
Article III standing: (1) a plaintiff must have suffered an
"injury in fact," (2) that is "fairly
traceable to the challenged conduct," and (3) is
"likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct.
1540, 1547 (2016) (citation omitted). The parties dispute
only the existence of the first requirement: whether
Hillesheim suffered an injury-in-fact that is sufficiently
concrete and particularized, not conjectural or hypothetical.
See id. at 1547-48.
summary judgment, Hillesheim had to do more than just rely on
the allegations from his complaint, because "[a] party
invoking federal jurisdiction must support each of the
standing requirements with the same kind and degree of
evidence at the successive stages of litigation as any other
matter." Constitution Party of S.D.v.
Nelson, 639 F.3d 417, 420 (8th Cir. 2011). Hillesheim
accordingly had to offer evidence in response to
Holiday's summary-judgment motion establishing that each