David Felimon Cerda v. Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued November 13, 2024*
Decided March 21, 2025
Before
F RANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR , Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. K OLAR , Circuit Judge
No. 23-2428
DAVID F ELIMON C ERDA ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
C HICAGO C UBS BASEBALL C LUB, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 17 C 9023
Jorge L. Alonso, Judge.
O R D E R
When the Chicago Cubs renovated Wrigley Field between 2014 and 2019, they
had to ensure that the ballpark satisfies the Americans with Disabilities Act. 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12101–213; 47 U.S.C. §§ 225, 661. Wrigley Field was constructed in 1914, long before
* David A. Cerda, counsel for plaintiff, did not appear for oral argument and did not notify the court
that he would not be present. Three weeks after the argument he told the court (through a proxy) that he
was and remained in jail. He was released in late December and has not contacted the court since then.
Rather than dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, we have elected to examine some of the issues to
ensure that the rights of persons situated similarly to plaintiff have been respected.

-- 1 of 5 --

No. 23-2428 Page 2
the ADA’s enactment, but the statute applies to older buildings as they are renovated.
Title III of the ADA requires the Attorney General to adopt regulations consistent with
the guidelines issued by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board, also known as the Access Board. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12186(b), (c), 12204. The Access
Board updated its guidelines in 2004, and in 2010 the Attorney General adopted them
wholesale. 75 Fed. Reg. 56,236, 56,238–39 (Sept. 15, 2010); 28 C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. A, B.
The parties call these the 2010 Standards. They agree that the 2010 Standards supply the
governing rules, making it unnecessary for us to decide whether their validity or inter-
pretation is affected by Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024).
The parties also agree that, under the 2010 Standards, Wrigley Field must have at
least 209 locations accessible to patrons using wheelchairs. Accessible spots must be dis-
tributed throughout the park and “substantially equivalent to, or better than, the
choices of seating locations and viewing angles available to all other spectators.” 2010
Standards §221.2.3. The Cubs maintain that the renovated stadium has at least 225 qual-
ifying spaces, but plaintiff David Cerda disagrees. He uses a motorized wheelchair and
was happy with the options formerly available to him behind home plate or in the
right-field bleachers. Seating near home plate was altered by the renovations, and the
area in the bleachers that Cerda enjoyed (“the Budweiser Patio”) is now sold exclusively
to groups. Dissatisfied with his current options, Cerda contends in this suit that the
Cubs must make additional changes.
The district judge held a five-day bench trial and found that, as renovated,
Wrigley Field has at least 209 complying spaces available to patrons in wheelchairs.
2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107124 (N.D. Ill. June 21, 2023). Cerda contends on appeal that the
judge made some legal errors in determining which parts of the 2010 Standards apply
to which areas, but the principal contention is that the judge made erroneous findings
when concluding that the wheelchair-accessible locations in the 200 Tier, also known as
the Terrace, have viewing angles “substantially equivalent” to other seats. More than a
third of the accessible locations are in the Terrace, so if Cerda prevails on this issue the
Cubs fall short of 209 qualifying seats.
Before we address the dispute about the Terrace, we deal with a dispute about
Wrigley Field’s club and luxury box locations. Cerda maintains that the 1914 Club, in
particular, lacks any accessible seating locations, so that Wrigley Field’s plan flunks the
requirement that accessible seating be available throughout the park. Before trial the
district court dismissed this aspect of Cerda’s complaint, ruling that he lacks standing.
405 F. Supp. 3d 780 (N.D. Ill. 2019).
Standing to sue exists when the plaintiff has suffered an injury, caused by the de-
fendant’s conduct and redressable by a favorable judicial decision. Lujan v. Defenders of

-- 2 of 5 --

No. 23-2428 Page 3
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). The judge thought that Cerda has not established
injury because he is not a member of the 1914 Club, has not applied to join, has not sug-
gested that he is willing to pay the steep entry fee (the 1914 Club also has a long waiting
list for membership), and does not say that he knows any of the members. He has never
been invited by a member to watch a game from the 1914 Club, and there is no prospect
that he will be invited. We agree with the district court that Cerda therefore lacks stand-
ing to litigate any claims related to the seating arrangements inside the 1914 Club.
Let us turn to seating in the Terrace. Modern sports parks are built like shallow
bowls. Capacity in such a stadium can be increased only by adding seats that are farther
away and higher up. This places many spectators far from the action—but every seat
has an unobstructed view of the field. Wrigley Field is more compact because it has
multiple decks. Seating in the 300 and 400 Levels is on top of the 200 Level seating. This
puts spectators closer to the players (hence the catchphrase “the friendly confines”) but
at the cost of obstructed views. Some spectators will be behind the piers holding up the
higher decks. Others, especially in the Terrace, have vertical views blocked by the over-
hang of a higher deck and can’t see the arc of a fly ball. These spectators also cannot see
the scoreboards (either the original hand-operated scoreboard or the modern electronic
ones). The Cubs have installed monitors to furnish views of fly balls and scoreboards,
but many people prefer a natural sight.
Seating in the Terrace entails a tradeoff: inferior views (for seats far enough back
for the view to be obstructed), but protection from rain (the deck above is an enormous
umbrella). The accessible locations on the Terrace level also are close to elevators and
concession stands. Cerda contends that obstruction of the sightlines means that the ac-
cessible spots on the Terrace level flunk the requirement of substantial equivalence to
non-handicapped seating.
The district judge found that the accessible-seating locations in the Terrace satisfy
the 2010 Standards for two principal reasons: first, non-handicapped patrons in the Ter-
race encounter the same viewing obstructions; second, wheelchair-using patrons have
expressed a preference for these seats. The judge added that, since accessible seating at
Wrigley Field has never sold out, a wheelchair user always can find a seat outside the
Terrace.
The first of the district judge’s points is not straightforward, because the accessi-
ble areas are toward the rear; on average, therefore, the sightlines must be worse. But
the point that almost everyone in Terrace seating both faces some obstruction of view
and enjoys some protection from the weather is undeniable.

-- 3 of 5 --

No. 23-2428 Page 4
The second point comes from the fact that, of the roughly 50 season tickets the
Cubs sell each year to wheelchair-using patrons, more than half of the spectators choose
to sit in the Terrace, and all but four of these choose seats with obstructed views. See
2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107124 at *19 (data for 2023). The judge thought that these custom-
ers may prefer the ready access, the protection from foul weather, and the lower
prices—for the Cubs understandably sell obstructed-view seats at lower prices than
seats with full views. The district judge thought that wheelchair-using patrons have ex-
pressed their own judgment about the adequacy of these seats—a judgment that differs
from Cerda’s.
Whether one location is “substantially equivalent” to another is a mixed ques-
tion, requiring the application of legal rules to physical facts. The Supreme Court has
told us that, when the legal issues dominate, appellate review is plenary, but that when
the factual issues dominate review is deferential. U.S. Bank N.A. v. Village at Lakeridge,
LLC, 583 U.S. 387, 395–96 (2018); Bufkin v. Collins, 145 S. Ct. 728, 738–39 (2025). The dis-
pute here is case-specific—it concerns how to understand conditions in the Terrace at
Wrigley Field, not an abstract legal question about the meaning of the 2010 Standards.
We therefore ask whether the district judge’s conclusion is clearly erroneous, see Fed. R.
Civ. P. 52(a)(6), and hold that it is not. The accessible locations in the Terrace count to-
ward the required 209.
Next up: the 300 Level (the deck above the Terrace). Views from accessible loca-
tions on this level are unobstructed, and Cerda finds them desirable. But he contends
that many spots do not meet the 2010 Standards because they lack the front-to-back
room required for an accessible space, unless an inch or two where a patron can tuck
toes under a railing counts. The district judge held that toe room under the railing
counts. This is a legal issue (the decision depends on an interpretation of the 2010
Standards), and Cerda contends that the judge got the law wrong.
Things have changed since Cerda filed suit. In 2022 the United States filed its
own suit under the ADA, United States v. Chicago Baseball Holdings, LLC, No. 22 C 3639
(N.D. Ill.), contending that Wrigley Field is short of the required 209 spaces. The United
States also filed a brief as amicus curiae in this case, agreeing with Cerda on some mat-
ters, including the toe-room dispute (U.S. Br. 14–20). That suit was settled, and on No-
vember 19, 2024, six days after the oral argument of this appeal, District Judge Pacold
approved a consent decree that obliges the Cubs to provide additional front-to-back
room for some locations and make additional changes, such as eight new accessible
seats in the front row and improvements to accessible seating in the Terrace and bleach-
ers.

-- 4 of 5 --

No. 23-2428 Page 5
The Cubs tell us that, with these changes, Wrigley Field will have 217 qualifying
accessible locations as the United States counts them. (The United States has not fur-
nished us with its own calculation.) Judge Pacold must believe that there are at least
209, or she would not have approved the consent decree. Cerda has not contended that
the Cubs’ representation is incorrect, nor has he argued that his appeal should be held
in abeyance until all alterations required by the consent decree have been made.
Given our conclusion that the district judge’s findings about Terrace seating are
not clearly erroneous, and the Cubs’ promise to improve other locations, it is unneces-
sary to discuss Cerda’s remaining arguments (such as his contention that 15 spaces in
the “Batter’s Eye” portion of Wrigley Field are noncompliant because a screen designed
to improve batters’ sightlines makes the illumination too dim).
We have not addressed all of the arguments in Cerda’s brief, but those that we
have let pass either do not affect the outcome or were well handled by the district judge.
A FFIRMED

-- 5 of 5 --