United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
I. QUIÑONES ALEJANDRO, J.
this Court is a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”) 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) by Defendant Law School Admission Council, Inc.,
(“Defendant”), [ECF 10], which seeks the
dismissal of the claims asserted against it based on a lack
of subject matter jurisdiction and a failure to state a claim
on which relief can be granted. Plaintiff Jane Doe
(“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se,
opposes the motion. [ECF 12]. The issues raised in the motion
to dismiss have been fully briefed and are ripe for
reasons stated herein, the motion to dismiss is granted.
20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint in
which she avers, inter alia, that in 2015 and 2016,
Defendant violated Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12101 et seq., when it denied her
requests for accommodations during multiple administrations
of the Law School Admissions Test (the “LSAT”).
[ECF 1, 5]. On April 3, 2017, Defendant filed the instant
motion to dismiss the complaint. When considering
Defendant's motion to dismiss, this Court accepts, as
true, all relevant factual allegations in the complaint.
See Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 579 F.3d 203, 210-11
(3d Cir. 2009). These allegations are summarized as follows:
Defendant is a business entity that administers the LSAT, a
standardized examination that is required for admission to
accredited law schools in the United States. (See
Compl. at ¶¶ 3, 5). The LSAT is administered four
times a year at designated testing centers throughout the
United States. (Id. at ¶ 9). The LSAT is
comprised of six sections that measure an applicant's
reading comprehension, analytical reasoning, and logical
reasoning skills. (Id.). These sections are
comprised of one reading comprehension section, two logical
reasoning sections, one analytical reasoning section, one
writing sample, and one “experimental section”
that can be either a reading comprehension, analytical, or
logical reasoning section. (Id.).
Plaintiff alleges that she suffers from numerous permanent
disabilities, including, inter alia, attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder and dyslexia, a reading
disorder. (Id. at ¶ 8). Plaintiff alleges that
she applied for, and was denied, testing accommodations for
LSAT administrations in 2008 and 2009. (Id. at
¶ 7). Plaintiff also submitted a timely request in April
2015 for an accommodation of extra time on the June 2015
LSAT, but Defendant denied her request due to a lack of the
requisite documentation. (See Id. at ¶ 9).
After a series of accommodation requests that were denied,
Plaintiff filed this action seeking redress for the
“April 17, 2015 to present, and the upcoming October
2016 accommodation request.” (Id. at ¶
argues, inter alia, that (1) this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over all of Plaintiff s claims
because they are not ripe for review; (2) Counts I through IV
fail, as a matter of law, to the extent that they seek
monetary damages since Title III explicitly provides
litigants with the right to pursue only injunctive relief;
and (3) to the extent that the claims are ripe for review,
Counts I and IV must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
as they fail to state a cognizable claim. Plaintiff refutes
these arguments generally and argues that the claims, as
pled, are both ripe and legally sufficient.
noted, Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to
Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Under Rule 12(b)(1), a court
must grant a motion to dismiss if it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to hear a claim. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).
“If a claim is not ripe, the court should dismiss it
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” River
Thames Ins. Co. v. 5329 West, Inc., 1995 WL 241490, at
*2 (E.D. Pa. 1995). Because this Court finds that it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, it need not consider the
arguments made for dismissal under Rule 12 (b)(6).
evaluating a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, a court must first
determine whether the movant presents a facial or factual
attack. Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan
Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977);
Constitution Party of Pa. v. Aichele, 757 F.3d 347,
357 (3d Cir. 2014). In reviewing a facial challenge where the
sufficiency of the pleadings is contested, “the court
must only consider the allegations of the complaint and
documents referenced therein and attached thereto, in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Gould Elec.
Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000).
Where a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is filed prior to an answer, as
is the case here, it will be considered a facial challenge to
jurisdiction. Id. at 358.
considering such a facial challenge, a court must apply the
same standard of review that is applied to a motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. As such,
well-pleaded factual allegations are taken as true, and
reasonable inferences are drawn in the plaintiffs favor.
Id. A complaint will be dismissed for lack of
standing or subject matter jurisdiction only if it appears
that the plaintiff will not be able to assert a colorable
claim of subject matter jurisdiction. Cardio-Med.
Assocs., Ltd. v. Crozer-Chester Med. Ctr., 721 F.2d 68,
75 (3d Cir. 1983). The plaintiff bears the burden of
establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992).
though pleadings and other submissions by pro se
litigants are subject to liberal construction and courts are
required to accept the truth of a plaintiffs well-pleaded
allegations while drawing reasonable inferences in the
plaintiffs favor, Wallace v. Fegan, 455 Fed.Appx.
137, 139 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Capogrosso v. Sup. Ct. of
N.J.,588 F.3d 180, 184 (3d Cir. 2009) (per curiam)),
a pro se complaint must still “contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ...