621 F. App'x 56
2d Cir.2015Background
- Bernstein appeals a 2015 district court order granting dismissal for lack of standing and adopting a magistrate judge’s R&R.
- The district court did not address Bernstein’s amended complaint’s failure-to-state-a-claim grounds.
- Bernstein seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the City for alleged ADA and Rehabilitation Act violations at Central Park.
- Two infirmities alleged: (i) missing signage at inaccessible entrances; (ii) specific incidents of inaccessibility allegedly harming Bernstein and others who are blind.
- The court remands for further fact-finding on Bernstein’s intent to return to Central Park, a key standing factor, and on the failure-to-state-claim issue under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Bernstein’s home location (Michigan) does not determine his ability to establish intent to return; multiple factors affect this inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for injunctive relief | Bernstein alleges past ADA violations and ongoing access barriers. | Intent to return is not sufficiently shown; past frequency is insufficient without explicit intent. | Remanded for further fact-finding on Bernstein’s intent to return. |
| Adequacy of the amended complaint under ADA/RA claims | City violates Title II and §504 by denying meaningful access. | Plaintiff uses improper standard of ‘equal or reasonable access’ instead of meaningful access. | Remand on failure-to-state-claim; improper standard identified but not fatal to claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kreisler v. Second Ave. Diner Corp., 731 F.3d 184 (2d Cir.2013) (standing for injunctive relief when past injury and likelihood of return shown)
- Camarillo v. Carrols Corp., 518 F.3d 153 (2d Cir.2008) (standing where past injury and likelihood of continued discriminatory treatment inferred)
- Disabled in Action v. Bd. of Elections in City of New York, 752 F.3d 189 (2d Cir.2014) (definition of discrimination under §504/Title II and need for meaningful access)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (three-part standing test (injury, causation, redressability))
- Shain v. Ellison, 356 F.3d 211 (2d Cir.2004) (real and immediate threat of future injury for injunctive relief)
- Interpharm, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 655 F.3d 136 (2d Cir.2011) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal with factual assumptions)
- Rent Stabilization Ass’n of City of New York v. Dinkins, 5 F.3d 591 (2d Cir.1993) (dismissals for lack of standing may be raised under Rule 12(b)(6))