relief against eleven of Defendants’ store locations. District courts have differed as to how far associational standing will extend in an ADA case when the defendant is a nationwide chain. Some courts have held that an organization lacks representative standing to sue on behalf of unnamed members and therefore can seek injunctive relief only against those specific locations at which a named member has encountered alleged ADA violations. See Hilton Hotels, 2009 WL 6067336, at *5, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126645, at *14 (finding allegations that “unnamed members encountered accessibility barriers at various unnamed Hilton hotels” was “simply too vague” to confer associational standing on an organizational plaintiff); see also Clark v. Burger King Corp., 255 F.Supp.2d 334, 345 (D.N.J.2003) (<HOLDING>). These courts would require a plaintiffs
holding that the organizational plaintiff has representative standing to assert ada violations only in so far as the named member has standing holding that organizational standing is proper where the challenged conduct has directly harmed an organizations ability to provide services holding that organizational plaintiff failed to establish standing to challenge creche holding that where one plaintiff has standing we need not consider whether the other individual and corporate plaintiffs have standing to maintain the suit holding that after a class is certified the controversy may exist  between a named defendant and a member of the class represented by the named plaintiff even though the claim of the named plaintiff has become moot