There is generally agreement among the courts of appeal that under 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act that a non-disabled person has standing to pursue injunctive relief when they are injured because of their association with a disabled person. However, there are conflicting decisions between the Second Circuit and Eleventh Circuit concerning the type of injury a non-disabled person must establish to gain standing. The Ninth Circuit has taken an extreme view that, irrespective of the nature of the independent injury of a non-disabled person, that associational standing and injunctive relief is rendered moot if the disabled person dies. The questions presented are:

1. Whether a non-disabled plaintiff must establish a separate injury casually related to, but separate and distinct from, a disabled person's injury under Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 582 F.3d 268, 279 (2nd Cir. 2009) or establish a separate injury of exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination under McCullum v. Orlando Regional Healthcare System Inc. 768 F.3d 1136,1143-44 (11th Cir. 2014).

2. Whether the existing circuit conflict is further burdened by the standard of the Ninth Circuit that a claim of injunctive relief of a non-disabled person is lost if the disabled person dies.

3. Whether the Ninth Circuit's analysis is flawed and disregards longstanding and well-established authorities of this court as to jurisdiction and mootness (including but not limited to exceptions to the mootness doctrine. (i.e. capable of repetition while evading review or the duration is too short to be fully litigated prior to its expiration)).

Whether a non-disabled plaintiff must establish a separate injury causally related to, but separate and distinct from, a disabled person's injury