NDN Collective, Sunny Red Bear, Nick Cottier, Bre Jackson, Mary Bowman and George Bettelyoun v. Retsel Corporation, d/b/a Grand Gateway Hotel and d/b/a Cheers Sports Lounge and Casino

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota denied Retsel Corporation's motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to reconsider prior rulings that plaintiffs had standing to pursue claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court held that the plaintiffs alleged personal injuries from discriminatory treatment, were not merely asserting third-party rights, and that the jury's verdict supported their standing. The court also rejected Retsel's newly raised argument that the requested hotel contracts were legally impossible under South Dakota law.

Holdings

1. Rule 60(b) reconsideration was not warranted because the plaintiffs asserted personal injuries from alleged discriminatory treatment, rather than third-party rights, and Trump v. CASA did not alter the prior standing analysis.
2. The individual plaintiffs and NDN Collective could each assert first-party standing based on alleged discrimination; the principal-agent relationship and the plaintiffs' activities on behalf of NDN Collective did not require choosing between individual and organizational standing.
3. Retsel did not establish that the plaintiffs were legally incapable of forming the proposed hotel-rental contract; if the rental had proceeded, the eventual occupants could have provided the identifying information required by SDCL § 34-18-21.
4. The court was not required to consider Retsel's legal-impossibility argument because Retsel had not raised it in its pleadings or summary-judgment motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rule 60(b) relief was warranted based on Retsel's contention that the plaintiffs lacked Article III or prudential standing because they were testers, asserted rights connected to hypothetical third parties, or acted in a dual individual and organizational capacity.
2. Whether the plaintiffs could establish standing and a viable § 1981 claim when Retsel argued that forming the proposed hotel-rental contract was legally impossible under South Dakota's guest-identification statute.
3. Whether Retsel could raise the contractual-impossibility theory for the first time in a motion for reconsideration.

Disposition

other