Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine you need a ramp to get into a store because of a disability. This case says you can't sue the store just because the ramp isn't there now. You have to prove you plan to go there in the future and will be unable to access it, not just that it's currently inaccessible.

For Legal Practitioners

The appellate court affirmed dismissal for lack of standing, holding that a plaintiff must allege a specific intent to return to the non-compliant premises to establish standing for ADA and FCRA accessibility claims. This reinforces the requirement for a concrete and particularized future injury, distinguishing it from generalized grievances or past harms.

For Law Students

This case tests the standing requirements for ADA and FCRA accessibility claims, specifically the need to allege a future intent to visit the non-compliant premises. It fits within the broader doctrine of standing, emphasizing that a plaintiff must demonstrate a genuine threat of future injury, not merely a past or hypothetical one, to avoid dismissal.

Newsroom Summary

A Florida appeals court ruled that people suing businesses for disability access violations must prove they plan to visit the property in the future. This decision makes it harder for individuals to challenge accessibility issues without a concrete plan to return.

Constitutional Issues

Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendant on the plaintiff's claim of housing discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act.

Rule Statements

To establish a prima facie case of housing discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act, a plaintiff must present evidence that (1) she is a member of a protected class, (2) she was qualified for the housing, (3) she suffered an adverse housing action, and (4) the circumstances surrounding the adverse action give rise to an inference of discrimination.

Scenario: You have a disability and need wheelchair access to a local restaurant. You've been unable to enter in the past, but you want to go again next month.

Your Rights: You have the right to access public accommodations. However, to sue for a violation, you must be able to clearly state your intention to visit the restaurant again in the future and explain how the lack of accessibility will prevent your visit.

What To Do: If you plan to visit the restaurant again and cannot access it due to disability barriers, clearly state this intent and the specific barriers in any communication or legal action you take.

Is it legal to sue a business for not being wheelchair accessible if I've never been there before and don't plan to go?

No, it is generally not legal to sue a business for disability access violations if you have not visited and do not have a concrete plan to visit in the future. Courts require proof of a genuine threat of future injury.

This ruling applies in Florida, but similar standing requirements exist in many other jurisdictions for ADA and FCRA claims.

For Disability rights advocates and potential plaintiffs

Advocates and individuals seeking to enforce ADA and FCRA accessibility standards must now be more explicit about their future intent to visit non-compliant properties. This may require more detailed pleading to establish standing and avoid early dismissal.

For Businesses and property owners

Businesses facing potential accessibility lawsuits may find it easier to get claims dismissed if the plaintiff cannot demonstrate a clear intent to visit the property in the future. This ruling could reduce the risk of 'tester' lawsuits where individuals sue without a genuine intent to patronize the establishment.

Q: What is Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC about?

Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC is a case decided by Florida District Court of Appeal on March 26, 2026.

Q: What court decided Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC?

Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC was decided by the Florida District Court of Appeal, which is part of the FL state court system. This is a state appellate court.

Q: When was Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC decided?

Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC was decided on March 26, 2026.

Q: What is the citation for Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC?

The citation for Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the full case name and who are the parties involved in Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC?

The full case name is Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC. The plaintiff, Linda Siplin-Perry, brought the lawsuit, and the defendant is the business entity 904 1ST, LLC.

Q: What court decided the case of Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC?

The case of Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC was decided by the Florida District Court of Appeal.

Q: When was the decision in Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC issued?

The decision in Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC was issued on October 26, 2023.

Q: What was the primary legal issue in Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC?

The primary legal issue was whether the plaintiff, Linda Siplin-Perry, had standing to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) for alleged accessibility violations at the defendant's premises.

Q: What type of dispute led to the lawsuit in Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC?

The dispute stemmed from allegations by Linda Siplin-Perry that the premises of 904 1ST, LLC were not accessible, violating disability rights laws.

Q: Is Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC published?

Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What topics does Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC cover?

Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC covers the following legal topics: Premises liability, Landlord-tenant law, Negligence, Slip and fall, Actual notice, Constructive notice, Summary judgment.

Q: What was the ruling in Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC. Key holdings: The court held that a plaintiff must demonstrate a genuine intent to return to a place of public accommodation in the future to establish standing to sue under the ADA and FCRA for accessibility violations. This is because standing requires an actual or imminent injury, and a mere past visit or hypothetical future visit is insufficient.; The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint, finding that she failed to allege facts demonstrating a specific intent to return to the defendant's property, which is a necessary element for standing.; The court clarified that allegations of past visits or general statements of future intent are not enough; a plaintiff must articulate concrete plans or a specific likelihood of returning to the subject premises to satisfy the standing requirement.; The court reasoned that without a demonstrated intent to return, the plaintiff cannot show a direct and concrete injury, either actual or imminent, which is a fundamental requirement for federal court jurisdiction.; The court distinguished this case from others where standing was found, noting that in those instances, plaintiffs had provided more specific evidence of future intent, such as living in the area or having a pattern of visiting similar establishments..

Q: Why is Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC important?

Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC has an impact score of 25/100, indicating limited broader impact. This decision reinforces the strict standing requirements for ADA and FCRA accessibility lawsuits, particularly in the Eleventh Circuit. It signals that plaintiffs must present concrete evidence of their intent to revisit a non-compliant establishment to avoid dismissal for lack of standing, potentially making it harder for serial litigants to bring such claims without demonstrating a genuine personal stake.

Q: What precedent does Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC set?

Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that a plaintiff must demonstrate a genuine intent to return to a place of public accommodation in the future to establish standing to sue under the ADA and FCRA for accessibility violations. This is because standing requires an actual or imminent injury, and a mere past visit or hypothetical future visit is insufficient. (2) The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint, finding that she failed to allege facts demonstrating a specific intent to return to the defendant's property, which is a necessary element for standing. (3) The court clarified that allegations of past visits or general statements of future intent are not enough; a plaintiff must articulate concrete plans or a specific likelihood of returning to the subject premises to satisfy the standing requirement. (4) The court reasoned that without a demonstrated intent to return, the plaintiff cannot show a direct and concrete injury, either actual or imminent, which is a fundamental requirement for federal court jurisdiction. (5) The court distinguished this case from others where standing was found, noting that in those instances, plaintiffs had provided more specific evidence of future intent, such as living in the area or having a pattern of visiting similar establishments.

Q: What are the key holdings in Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC?

1. The court held that a plaintiff must demonstrate a genuine intent to return to a place of public accommodation in the future to establish standing to sue under the ADA and FCRA for accessibility violations. This is because standing requires an actual or imminent injury, and a mere past visit or hypothetical future visit is insufficient. 2. The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint, finding that she failed to allege facts demonstrating a specific intent to return to the defendant's property, which is a necessary element for standing. 3. The court clarified that allegations of past visits or general statements of future intent are not enough; a plaintiff must articulate concrete plans or a specific likelihood of returning to the subject premises to satisfy the standing requirement. 4. The court reasoned that without a demonstrated intent to return, the plaintiff cannot show a direct and concrete injury, either actual or imminent, which is a fundamental requirement for federal court jurisdiction. 5. The court distinguished this case from others where standing was found, noting that in those instances, plaintiffs had provided more specific evidence of future intent, such as living in the area or having a pattern of visiting similar establishments.

Q: What cases are related to Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC?

Precedent cases cited or related to Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC: Chapman v. First Pres. Church, 915 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2019); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992); Rizzo v. Children's Hosp., 769 F.3d 1080 (11th Cir. 2014).

Q: What is the core holding of the appellate court in Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC?

The appellate court held that Linda Siplin-Perry lacked standing to sue because she failed to allege a genuine intent to visit the defendant's property in the future, which is a prerequisite for establishing standing in ADA and FCRA accessibility claims.

Q: What legal standard did the court apply to determine standing in this case?

The court applied the standard that a plaintiff must demonstrate a genuine threat of future injury, not merely a past or hypothetical one, to establish standing for claims under the ADA and FCRA concerning accessibility.

Q: Why did the court find that Linda Siplin-Perry lacked standing?

The court found that Siplin-Perry lacked standing because her complaint did not allege any specific future intent to visit the property owned by 904 1ST, LLC, which is required to show a concrete and particularized injury.

Q: What specific laws were at issue in Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC?

The specific laws at issue were the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), both of which prohibit discrimination based on disability and require accessibility.

Q: What does the court mean by 'future intent to visit' in the context of standing?

The court's emphasis on 'future intent to visit' means a plaintiff must plausibly allege they plan to return to or visit the non-compliant premises in the future to demonstrate a real and imminent threat of harm, not just a past encounter or a general desire for compliance.

Q: Did the court consider the alleged past inaccessibility of the premises?

While the plaintiff's claim likely involved past inaccessibility, the court focused on the lack of alleged future intent. A past injury alone is generally insufficient to confer standing for prospective relief under these statutes.

Q: Does this ruling mean businesses don't have to comply with the ADA?

No, this ruling does not alter a business's obligation to comply with the ADA and FCRA. It only addresses the procedural requirement of standing for a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit, meaning the underlying accessibility standards remain in effect.

Q: How does Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC affect me?

This decision reinforces the strict standing requirements for ADA and FCRA accessibility lawsuits, particularly in the Eleventh Circuit. It signals that plaintiffs must present concrete evidence of their intent to revisit a non-compliant establishment to avoid dismissal for lack of standing, potentially making it harder for serial litigants to bring such claims without demonstrating a genuine personal stake. As a decision from a state appellate court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: What is the practical impact of the ruling in Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC for individuals with disabilities?

The ruling means that individuals with disabilities must be able to articulate a specific plan or intent to visit a place in the future to bring a lawsuit for accessibility violations, making it potentially harder to challenge non-compliance without such a stated intent.

Q: How does this decision affect businesses like 904 1ST, LLC regarding accessibility lawsuits?

Businesses like 904 1ST, LLC may find it easier to defend against accessibility lawsuits if plaintiffs cannot clearly allege a future intent to visit their premises, potentially reducing the risk of litigation based solely on past inaccessibility.

Q: What advice might businesses take from this ruling?

Businesses might be encouraged to ensure their premises are accessible to avoid potential lawsuits, but they can also be more confident in their defense if a plaintiff cannot demonstrate a concrete future intent to visit.

Q: What are the compliance implications for businesses after this decision?

The decision doesn't change the underlying compliance obligations under the ADA and FCRA, but it highlights the procedural hurdle plaintiffs must overcome, potentially shifting focus to the plaintiff's standing rather than the business's compliance.

Q: Who is most affected by the requirement to show future intent to visit?

Individuals who are not current patrons or residents in the immediate vicinity of a business, and who may only encounter accessibility barriers incidentally or hypothetically, are most affected by this heightened standing requirement.

Q: Could Linda Siplin-Perry refile her lawsuit?

Linda Siplin-Perry could potentially refile her lawsuit if she amends her complaint to include specific allegations demonstrating a genuine future intent to visit the premises of 904 1ST, LLC, thereby curing the standing defect.

Q: How does this case fit into the broader legal history of ADA standing?

This case aligns with a line of decisions that have increasingly scrutinized standing in ADA cases, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury, often focusing on the intent to visit or patronize the alleged non-compliant establishment.

Q: What legal precedent might have influenced the court's decision?

The court's decision likely draws upon U.S. Supreme Court precedent regarding standing, such as cases emphasizing the need for actual or imminent injury, and potentially prior appellate decisions interpreting ADA standing requirements.

Q: How has the interpretation of standing for disability access claims evolved?

The interpretation has evolved towards requiring more specific allegations of harm and intent, moving away from broader interpretations that might allow standing based on generalized grievances or potential future encounters without concrete plans.

Q: What was the docket number in Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC?

The docket number for Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC is 5D2025-3223. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Linda Siplin-Perry v. 904 1ST, LLC be appealed?

Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.

Q: How did the case reach the Florida District Court of Appeal?

The case reached the appellate court on appeal from a lower court's decision. The trial court had dismissed the plaintiff's case, and Linda Siplin-Perry appealed that dismissal to the Florida District Court of Appeal.

Q: What was the procedural posture of the case when it was decided?

The procedural posture was an appeal from a dismissal. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's dismissal for legal error, specifically concerning the plaintiff's standing to bring her claims.

Q: What specific procedural ruling did the appellate court affirm?

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's procedural ruling to dismiss the case, finding that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted due to a lack of standing.