have standing to bring claims against all facilities in a nationwide chain, even if the individuals did not visit every facility.” (Pls.’ Mem. at 22.) Indeed, only one of the cases cited by Plaintiffs, Celano v. Marriott Int’l, even involved a nationwide chain, and there the court held that the plaintiffs had standing to sue twenty-six golf courses around the country because the plaintiffs alleged that they had actually been deterred from play ing at these courses. No. 05-4004, 2008 WL 239306, at *7 (ND.Cal. Jan. 28, 2008) (“All three plaintiffs have attempted to arrange tee times at numerous Marriott courses, but have been unable to play because Marriott advised them that it did not provide accessible carts.”); see also Bacon v. City of Richmond, 386 F.Supp.2d 700, 705 (E.D.Va.2005) (<HOLDING>). Unlike Celano or Bacon, however, Plaintiffs
holding unconstitutional the closing of all the schools in one county holding that a federallyfunded program in which public school teachers provided remedial education to disadvantaged children in parochial schools as well as public schools did not violate the establishment clause holding that the unilateral placement of a student by the parents in an unapproved school is not by itself a bar to tuition reimbursement but public schools may not place students in unapproved schools recognizing the districts duty of care for the protection of school children in its schools holding that plaintiffs had standing to obtain relief against all facilities within a school district not just against the four schools that they attended because ejach plaintiff has expressed a wellfounded interest in attending events at facilities other than the four schools mentioned