Range v. 480-486 Broadway, LLC
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20456
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff King Range, a wheelchair user, sued Broadway (owner), Madewell, and J. Crew alleging 33 ADA Title III accessibility violations at a NYC retail property (no permanent ramp, narrow interior spaces, missing accessibility symbol, etc.).
- Defendants told the district court they intended to remediate the premises and had applied (again) to the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) for a permanent ramp; LPC hearing was scheduled after the status conference.
- District Court stayed discovery and later entered a two‑year stay of the action to avoid needless fees while defendants pursued remediation and LPC approval, while stating Range could move to modify the stay if necessary.
- Range appealed the stay, arguing (1) it was a final appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, (2) it was appealable under the collateral‑order doctrine, and (3) he was entitled to mandamus relief.
- The Second Circuit concluded it lacked appellate jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stay is a final appealable order under § 1291 | Stay effectively puts Range out of court for two years so it's final | Stay is an ordinary docket‑control delay while defendants remediate | Not final; ordinary stay not appealable under § 1291 |
| Whether stay is appealable under collateral‑order doctrine | Stay conclusively denies prompt judicial relief and is unreviewable later | Stay is subject to modification and does not conclusively resolve issues | Not collateral; order is revisable and not the final word |
| Whether mandamus relief is warranted | Extraordinary relief needed because defendants' promises are unenforceable and violations may persist | District court exercised permissible discretion and left door open to modify stay | Mandamus denied; no clear usurpation or abuse of discretion |
| Whether stay was an abuse of discretion | Stay improperly delays enforcement of ADA rights | Stay justified by remediation plans and to avoid unnecessary discovery | No abuse shown; district court acted within its discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (stay that "effectively puts plaintiff out of court" may be final)
- Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (finality requires ending litigation on the merits)
- Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271 (collateral‑order test for appeals of nonfinal orders)
- Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (district court authority to stay cases to control its docket)
- Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83 (stay decision calls for studied judgment balancing hardships)